Pass More 2011

This article was downloaded by: [University of Memphis Libraries]
On: 04 December 2014, At: 07:55

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Coaching: An International Journal of

Theory, Research and Practice
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcoa20
A critical review of executive coaching

research: a decade of progress and
what's to come
a b
Jonathan Passmore & Annette Fillery-Travis
a
MOP Coaching & Consulting Ltd , London , UK
b
Middlesex University , London , UK
Published online: 25 Jul 2011.
To cite this article: Jonathan Passmore & Annette Fillery-Travis (2011) A critical review of
executive coaching research: a decade of progress and what's to come, Coaching: An International
Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 4:2, 70-88, DOI: 10.1080/17521882.2011.596484
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2011.596484
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice
Vol. 4, No. 2, September 2011, 7088
A critical review of executive coaching research: a decade of progress and

what’s to come
Jonathan Passmorea* and Annette Fillery-Travisb
a
MOP Coaching & Consulting Ltd, London, UK; bMiddlesex University, London, UK
Downloaded by [University of Memphis Libraries] at 07:55 04 December 2014
(Received 18 January 2011; accepted 3 February 2011)
This paper aims to summarise the current state of coaching research as a basis for
future studies. It seeks to provide a frame of reference for researchers and
reflective practitioners interested in research to ensure that future studies build on
previous work and add to our knowledge and understanding of coaching as a
unique domain of practice. The paper is divided into three sections. The first two
sections review the state of coaching research over the past 100 years, with a
greater focus on the past decade when the number of studies published has
accelerated. The paper divides the recent research into categories: the nature of
coaching, coach behaviour studies, client behaviour studies, relationship studies
and executive coaching impact studies and discusses research methods including
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, Grounded Theory and Discourse
Analysis, randomised controlled trials, meta-analysis and mixed methods
research. The third section considers the future direction research may take. It
identifies key themes and sample research questions which the authors believe
could be the focus of future research. The paper concludes by noting that
coaching research is likely to continue to grow over the coming decade, and this
growth offers an opportunity for the researchpractitioner partnership to be
strengthened and maintained.
Keywords: coaching research questions; coaching research; meta-analysis;
randomised controlled trials; IPA; Grounded Theory; mixed methods research
Introduction
It has been 10 years since Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson’s (2001) seminal review of
coaching research. This paper highlighted the scarcity of coaching research and
noted seven impact studies on coaching had been published in the psychological
literature. However, it is fair to say that coaching research can be traced back much
further. In 1937, Gorby published a study of coaching’s impact on manufacturing
(Gorby, 1937). The study, while limited in its methods, was a marker signalling the
potential of coaching as a force for good within organisations. However, after a short
paper building on Gorby’s study (Bigelow, 1938), the trail went cold. It did not begin
again until the 1990s and the work of writers such as Kilburg (1996, 2001, 2004a,
2004b), Diedrich (1996, 2004) and Lowman (2005) who returned to this theme of
coaching as a force for organisational change.
*Corresponding author. Email: jonathancpassmore@yahoo.co.uk

ISSN 1752-1882 print/ISSN 1752-1890 online
# 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17521882.2011.596484
http://www.informaworld.com
Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice 71
A closer look at many of the early studies noted by Kampa-Kokesch and

Anderson revealed weaknesses with methodology. These weaknesses included
limitations in the descriptions of the research methods, inadequate sample sizes for
statistical significance and studies where the claims made were not fully supported by
the data. Such research problems, however, are not uncommon for new domains, of
which coaching in 2001 was certainly one (Passmore & Gibbes, 2007).
If we consider the evolution of other disciplines, such as counselling, we can draw
lessons from how knowledge evolves. As a new area evolves it passes through several
phases prior to maturation. Initially it tends to focus on defining the focus of study.
This involves a process of exploration of the phenomena and a sharing of practice
between practitioners. This phase helps to shape and identify what is understood of
the field from experience. It also helps to explore what is within the field of enquiry
and what is outside. An example of this is a focus of debate around definitions and
boundaries. For example, where is the boundary between coaching and counselling?
Or what is the difference between coaching and mentoring?
After the exploration phase, attention shifts to theory building methods and
measures. During this phase, researchers often seek to develop and test new
interventions, products or protocols. The initial part of this phase is often marked
with case studies and small qualitative research, with attention paid to unique
models offered by writers and also adaptations of existing models drawn from
parallel domains. In the second part of this phase the focus gradually shifts from
theory building to randomised controlled trials (RCT) with large sample sizes and
finally to meta-analysis which review the results from multiple RCT papers to offer
an insight on the efficacy of the intervention across populations, organisations and
methods (see e.g. Eby, 2011).
Once theories are established and recognised, the third phase is characterised with
concern for exceptions and variance to the established theories. One area covered is
the question: Which groups or issues benefit most from which approach?
Each phase requires different methodologies and instruments. In the first phase,
the approach is experiential and theoretical, as individuals share examples of practice
and debate boundaries. In the second phase, the case study and survey are popular
tools for helping explore the phenomena. Later in the phase, quantitative techniques
emerge including the use of effect size to demonstrate impact, alongside theory
building techniques such as Grounded Theory, used to help research build the
theoretical framework for the domain. In the final phase exploring difference
quantitative techniques continue alongside such techniques as Interpretative
Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to explore individual experiences.
While no research development pathway fits the model perfectly we would
suggest that while many organisational interventions such as training are in phase 3,
coaching is in the later stages of phase 2. There are a growing number of RCT (see
Grant, Passmore, Cavanagh, & Parker, 2010), the first meta-study (De Meuse, Dai, &
Lee, 2009) and some initial attempts to use theory building tools (see e.g. Duff &
Passmore, 2010; Passmore, 2010a; Passmore & McGoldrick, 2009). At this stage we
would suggest that much of the research claims are unsubstantiated by other studies
and in this sense may reflect local conditions or populations. This situation changes
as multiple studies are published reviewing the same or similar question and with
similar results.
72 J. Passmore and A. Fillery-Travis
In this paper, we aim to review in detail the state of coaching research and ask
‘Where next for the research agenda’? as coaching moves forward from phase 2
towards phase 3.
Purpose of coaching research

As researchers we have both been challenged in the past by practitioners; ‘So why is
research important? I know it works and that is enough’. For many practitioners,
that is enough. However, when decisions need to be made about the impact of
coaching, then both companies and psychologists need to ensure that they can
demonstrate that coaching can produce positive outcomes which make it worth the
investment. Like many other interventions, tangible costs are not the whole story, or
at least we would argue they should not be. A price cannot be placed on the saving of
a life from a road traffic death (Passmore & Mortimer, 2011) or the improvements in
hope, resilience and emotional intelligence of school children (Passmore & Brown,
2009).
We would argue that research can provide valuable benefits for us as
practitioners. Research aims to identify and define the knowledge base upon which
practitioners work what is coaching’s combination of knowledge and skills which
differentiate what coaches do from other helping and learning interventions? Such a
differentiation is essential for any consideration of coaching as a profession
(Passmore, 2011).
With the idea of an evolving and developing knowledge base, supplied by
appropriate research, there comes the potential of enhancing coaching performance
of current coaches. Training and development therefore becomes a process of
continuous professional development for coaching practitioners.
Further, with increased demand for coaching, new coaches also need to be
trained. Formal training too should be based on evidence from research about what
works and how. Those involved in coaching training need to understand what works
and why. This knowledge needs to be grounded in research, as well as theory. For
example, do open questions make a difference in coaching? If so how? Or is listening
and empathy enough to help provide a space for reflection, learning and change?
Does it matter if the coach moves from one approach to another within a coaching
session, or is consistency in approach important to producing effective outcomes?
What approaches work best with different presenting issues, for example is
Transpersonal the most effective model for careers coaching and Cognitive
behavioural coaching most effective for coaching on stress issues? When should
we coach and when should we refer to other medical or counselling colleagues? These
are important questions and we still do not know adequate answers to all of
these questions, although the past 10 years have given us a much better insight into
the process and the experience of coaching.
In the next section, we review the research which took place during the
twentieth century and move onto consider the research published in the past decade
since Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson initial review of the coaching literature in
2001.
Review of research
The period from 1937 (the date of the first identified coaching study) to 1999 was a
period of slow progress, which saw more published papers in the final 10 years than
in the preceding 50. Much of this was due to the leading work of Consulting
Psychology which identified the growing trend in organisations. More recently the
journal has been joined by the British Psychological Society publication, the
International Coaching Psychology Review and by journals such as Coaching: An
International Journal of theory, research and practice. All of these, plus papers in
Personnel Psychology, Applied Positive Psychology and other journals have con-
tributed towards the increase in published coaching research papers, although the
number of papers in main stream organisational psychology journals remains small.
In the 62 years between 1937 and 1999 there were a total of 93 articles, PhDs and
empirical studies published. The 1937 and 1938 papers were followed by a slow
trickle of papers. One research paper was published in the 1940s (Lewis, 1947) and
this was followed by nine studies in the 1950s, the majority concentred in the later
half of the decade. This was followed by three studies in the 1960s and three in the
1970s. It was not until the 1980s that the first signs of growth were seen. Several of
these early papers hinted at the potential that coaching may have either as a separate
organisational intervention, or as a complimentary intervention to help in skills
transfer after training. For example, Holoviak’s study (1982) examined training
programmes in relationship to variations in company productivity levels in the coal
industry. The study used a semi-structured interview method and argued that
companies which provided greater amounts of management and supervisory
training, including coaching, achieved higher productivity.
It was not until the 1990s that coaching research papers became a common
occurrence in the literature, with 41 papers cited by the search engines PsycINFO
and Dissertation Abstracts International for the period. The focus of the papers
started to widen, with a recognition of the role of coaching in enhancing feedback
(Hillman, Schwandt, & Bartz, 1990), the contribution that coaching can make to both
leadership (Popper & Lipshitz, 1992) and management (Graham, Wedman, &
Garvin-Kester, 1993, 1994). One of the most interesting and rigorous studies during
this period was a triangulation and psychometric based study of coaching efficacy
(Peterson, 1993). This research found that participants improved by about 0.85
standard deviations in overall effectiveness as a result of coaching programmes.
The majority of research, however, reviewed coaching as a management skill and
employed case study led methodology to describe the process and effect on
individuals. Where qualitative methods were used, the favoured methodology was
content analysis. However, there was wide inconsistency in the quality of case study
papers which made it difficult to identify which factors contributed to the positive
outcomes described and as a result some have offered frameworks for case study
reporting (Passmore & Gibbes, 2007). During this period tentative quantitative
studies were also used, one example was Olivero, Bane, and Kopelman (1997). This
study reported the influence of coaching on learning. Thirty-one managers under-
went a conventional managerial training programme followed by eight weeks of one-
to-one coaching by internal coaches. The study found a 22.4% increase in
productivity after training and 88% increase after coaching. Looking back, this
study contained considerable weaknesses in the methodology; however, the paper
was an important milestone in coaching research. Also evident were papers which
explored the boundaries of coaching and its borders with counselling.
The nature of coaching

By 2000 the initial exploration of the field had provided various definitions of
coaching and attempted to understand what constituted coaching (Judge & Cowell,
1997; Thach & Heinselman, 1999). Tobias (1996) suggested that executive coaching
was really a repackaging of activities and techniques borrowed from other disciplines
such as counselling, psychology, learning and consulting.
Several papers have reviewed and debated the nature of coaching and its
boundaries with counselling (Bachkirova & Cox, 2004; Passmore, 2007a), as well as
the emerging domain of coaching psychology (Sperry, 2008; Stewart, O’Riordan, &
Palmer, 2008).
That being said, there is as yet no agreed definition of coaching, but examples
include:
a collaborative and egalitarian relationship between a coach, who is not necessarily a

domain-specific specialist, and Client, which involves a systematic process that focuses
on collaborative goal setting to construct solutions and employ goal attainment process
with the aim of fostering the on-going self-directed learning and personal growth of the
Client. (Grant & Stober, 2006)
To the more organisational perspective offered by Kilburg:
a helping relationship formed between a client who has managerial authority and
responsibility in an organization and a consultant who uses a wide variety of
behavioural techniques and methods to help the client achieve a mutually identified
set of goals to improve his or her professional performance and personal satisfaction
and, consequently, to improve the effectiveness of the client’s organization within a
formally defined coaching agreement. (Kilburg, 2000, p. 142)
In reflecting on the research and publications over the past decade we would offer the
following broad definition of coaching:
a Socratic based future focused dialogue between a facilitator (coach) and a participant
(coachee/client), where the facilitator uses open questions, active listening, summarises
and reflections which are aimed at stimulating the self awareness and personal
responsibility of the participant.
In this definition, we are suggesting that the term Socratic dialogue refers to the
belief held by the coach that the coachee already has within them the answer to
the question or is able to identify a route to discover the answer. Thus the role of
the coach is not socio-educational, but is more guided discovery, with the skill
of the coach in shaping questions and focusing attention on the next step of the
journey.
Alongside this there has been a debate about the nature of coaching psychology.
This asks whether coaching psychology is different from coaching and if so how.
Grant and Palmer (2002) defined coaching psychology as:
Coaching psychology is for enhancing performance in work and personal life domains
with normal, non-clinical populations, underpinned by models of coaching grounded in
established therapeutic approaches.
This definition implies that coaching psychology is distinctive from coaching.

Further the definition of coaching makes clear that the intervention is one targeted at
‘normal’ and non-clinical populations. However, more recently coaching is being
extended into new areas, and this is likely to continue as coaching skills continue to
be adopted by clinically trained staff for use in medical and educational settings.
Secondly, Grant and Palmer’s original definition suggests that coaching psychology
must draw on models grounded in therapeutic approaches. This potentially limits
coaching and restricts the development of approaches which are grounded in
organisational practice or are specifically developed for coaching. In response to

these and other points, Palmer and Grant have amended their definition:
Coaching Psychology is for enhancing well-being and performance in personal life and
work domains, underpinned by models of coaching grounded in established adult
learning and child learning or psychological approaches. (adapted Grant & Palmer,
2002)
An alternative approach to coaching psychology is to consider it as the study of

coaching practice as opposed to coaching practice itself. Passmore (2010b) has
offered the following definition of coaching psychology:
Coaching psychology is the scientific study of behaviour, cognitive and emotion

within coaching practice to deepen our understanding and enhance our practice within
coaching.
This approach to coaching psychology mirrors the definitions used for health,
occupational and other psychology disciplines. It reflects a view that psychology is
the scientific study of practice as opposed to the practice itself. He has argued that all
coaching practice should be evidence based and that while this is not the case at
present, coaches should be asserting their voice to protect their domain from
spurious practices which in the long term will have a detrimental impact on the
reputation of coaching.
As with all definitions there is the potential for debate. This on-going debate
helps us to more fully understand the nature of coaching and its limits and
boundaries.
One challenge for such definitions is the lack of recognition around group and
team coaching. The research on team coaching is at a lower level of maturity, but
there is a developing literature within the realm of team effectiveness (Mathieu,
Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Specifically, Wageman (1997, 2001) has made a
substantial contribution, culminating in the publication of a theory of team coaching
(Hackman & Wageman, 2005) The model focused on the functions that coaching
serves for a team, rather than on either specific leader behaviours or leadership styles.
It identified the specific times in the performance process when coaching interven-
tions are most likely to have their intended effects and reviewed the conditions under
which team-focused coaching is or is not likely to facilitate performance.
It may be argued that group or team coaching is too close to Action Learning
Sets and group facilitation to usefully distinguish between them. Indeed the use of
such methodologies has been actively explored and described in the team coaching
context (Vaartjes, 2005). For the present the question is still unresolved and hence we
do not address this mode of coaching explicitly in this paper.
Whilst considering ‘what coaching is’? the community has also explored the
concept of process that is what would be seen to be happening. At first the studies
were relatively naı̈ve and tended to err towards marketing literature on a particular
model or tool. A more critical engagement with the process was Dingman’s study
(2004) where the literature review compared a series of different coaching processes
and identified six generic stages which were part of all published models:
(1) Formal contracting.

(2) Relationship building.
(3) Assessment.
(4) Getting feedback and reflecting.
(5) Goal setting.
(6) Implementation and evaluation.
The five major approaches to executive coaching interventions that have been
summarised by Peltier (2001) are psychodynamic, behaviourist, person-centered,
cognitive therapeutic and system-oriented. They were subsequently explored in a
review (Feldman & Lankau, 2005). Each approach has been further discussed in
separate papers, as writers consider how these models, often borrowed from
counseling, may be applied in coaching (Cocivera & Cronshaw, 2004; Ducharme,
2004; Hrop, 2004; Kilburg, 2004; Sherin & Caiger, 2004). As befits the explorative
nature of the enquiry, these papers have tended to use case study and surveys as the
methodology and instruments of choice. Other writers (Cox, Bachkirova &
Clutterbuck, 2010; Palmer & Whybrow, 2007; Passmore, 2006) have also reviewed
a range of models and broadened this base to include narrative approaches,
existential, gestalt, NLP, solution-focused transpersonal, integrative and motiva-
tional interviewing.
In the following sections, we look at the research on coach behaviours, client
behaviours and the interaction between the two characters.
Coach behaviour studies

Numerous authors have tried to identify the critical attributes of the effective coach
(Hall, Otazo, & Hollenbeck, 1999; Kilburg, 1996, 2001). These papers have suggested
that coaching should draw from the well of counselling knowledge, as well as seeking
the views of coach and clients engaged in the process about what they believe works.
Hall, Otazo, and Hollenbeck (1999), based on coaches and clients views, identified a
set of key behaviours, which included challenge, listening, reflecting back and
checking back on understanding.
Jarvis, Lane, and Fillery-Travis (2006) identified three areas as being critical self
awareness, core coaching competences and an understanding of the ethics and
management of coaching relationships. Other studies (Dingman, 2004) have shown
similar competencies but perhaps with more clear delineation that is interpersonal
skills, communication skills and instrumental support which include effects such as
creativity, dealing with paradox and so on.
De Haan (2008a, b) has focused on critical moments in coaching in a series of
papers and has identified common themes and how coaches work to overcome these
struggles to emerge as more reflective and informed practitioners.
The wealth of studies and the similarity between the results, plus the cross over
with counselling research has now provided a good understanding of what is
important and what behaviours coach training should focus upon for new coaches.
There is a continual debate about the academic requirements of coach training.
Specifically should coaches hold a degree in psychology? Opinions vary. Some
(Berglas, 2002; Dean & Meyer, 2002) see this as critical. However, the obvious
question is what type of psychology training is critical. More clinically trained

psychologists may be adapt at identifying and working with mental health issues,
while industrial or occupational psychologists may be trained and licensed to give
feedback using psychometrics. An alternative view is that clients want a mixture of
training in psychology; experience in, or understanding of, business; established
reputation as a coach; listening skills; and professionalism as expressed by
intelligence, integrity, confidentiality and objectivity (Wasylyshyn, 2003).
Bono, Purvanova, Towler, and Peterson (2009) suggested some differences in the
key competencies identified by psychologist and non-psychologist coaches. Their
paper was based on a survey of 428 coaches, around 6040% non-psychologists
psychologists. One specific example was the focus of psychologists towards
assessment competences, which contrasted with non-psychologists who focused
more on questioning competences. Of course, differences between the USA and other
countries will reflect national differences in the training and regulation of
psychologists, so the results are culturally and time frame specific. Further work is
being undertaken on this topic to explore the differences between UK and USA
coaching practices (Passmore, Palmer, Short, & White, 2010).
Client behaviour studies

It is perhaps not surprising that there have been a range of studies looking into how
the client’s behaviour impacts upon the effectiveness of coaching. It is clear that a
willing and informed client will get more from the encounter when coaching is seen
as important, relevant and beneficial. This has been explored within the CIPD
research (Reynolds, Caley, & Mason, 2002) where the motivation to learn was
identified as one of the most critical factors influencing learning effectiveness.
Readiness for change is therefore a prime factor in predicting outcomes. Several
authors have tried to extend this analysis to consider if any specific sector of society
delineated by gender (Singh & Vinnicombe, 2005), learning style or personality type
(Dawdy, 2004) benefits more from coaching than another. However, to date none
have been able to provide evidence of any enhanced efficacy.
A further factor identified within the counselling literature which authors
(McKenna & Davis, 2009) have argued has relevance for coaching is the wider
support network. In coaching this will include managers, peers and the culture within
the organisation, as well as significant other relationships, such as close friends and
partners. As yet little research has focused on this wider network, but this is an
obvious area for future study and is likely to be an important factor influencing
outcomes, based on the results from earlier counselling research.

Coach client relationship studies
It is now recognised that the most consistently identified factor seen as contributing
to the success of a coaching engagement, of those within the influence of the coach,
is the quality of the relationship between the coach and individual client (De Haan,
2008a, b; Passmore, 2008). This view is shared by studies from psychotherapy where
the:
Common factors such as empathy, warmth, and the therapeutic relationship have been
shown to correlate more highly with client outcome than specialized treatment
interventions. (Lambert & Barley, 2002)
Initial investigations of coaching interventions began with Wasylyshyn (2003) who

undertook a survey of clients and found that the highest-scoring characteristic of an
effective coach was the ability to form a strong connection with the client. The study
itself had its weaknesses, in that it was based on the clients of a single coach and
therefore cannot be viewed as definitive. However, this issue has subsequently been
the subject of a variety of studies (Thach, 2002; Dingman, 2004) most of which
looked at efficacy more generally. The most recent empirical study was undertaken to
investigate the links between the coachclient relationship and the success of the
intervention. In this study, 73 managers and 24 coaches were involved in the work
and 31 coachclient dyads were analysed. The results indicated that the relationship
plays a role, mediating between the coaching received and the development of self-
efficacy (Baron & Morin, 2009).
More recently work by Boyce, Jackson, and Neal (2010) has explored the
coachcoachee relationship in the context of the US Military. Their study found that
relationship processes of rapport, trust and commitment positively predicted
coaching programme outcomes, including client and coach reactions, behavioural
change and coaching programme results. These results echo similar findings in
mentoring (Ragins & Kram, 2007).
The future research agenda need to build on this work to help coaches and clients
in the matching process, so future matches increase the prospects of positive
outcomes.
Coaching impact studies: organisational

As the process that underpins coaching has become clearer, the focus of research has
shifted to the second phase of theory development to consider the factors which
contribute to effective coaching and the overall impact upon the individual and
organisations. These have been categorised in terms of coach attributes, client
attributes and the organisational context for coaching and coaching process (Jarvis,
Lane, & Fillery-Travis, 2006).
The differentiation of factors and their weighting requires more sophisticated
methodologies. As a result, research involving controlled trials is beginning to move
to universities, who have the resources and skills to manage large-scale trials. There
has also been an increase in doctorate level research in coaching. This shift offers the
opportunity for longer timescales which are more appropriate to pre- and post-
intervention data collection and multiple interventions and control groups. One such
study used a quasi-experimental prepost control group design to examine the
impact of coaching on individual leadership development beyond what might be
expected from attending a leadership development programme (Hernez-Broome,
2004). It was found that even a single phone conversation once a month for three
months with an experienced coach provided significant benefits in producing
behaviour change within the workplace.
Most studies discussed above have tried to identify the impact within a single
study. The impact has varied from study to study, but a work has started on
beginning the results of multiple studies together through a meta-analysis (De Meuse
et al., 2009). The paper drew on a very limited range of studies, (Evers, Brouwers, &
Tomic, 2006; Luthans & Peterson, 2003; Peterson, 1993; Smither, London, Flautt,
Vergas, & Kucine, 2003; Togel & Nicholson, 2005; Wofred, 2003) in total four of
which were subsequently used in the analysis. In reality this is too few for a meta-
analysis, which was confirmed by the range in effect size in the individual studies. De
Meuse et al. (2009) concluded that while previous claims of Return on Investment
(ROI) were over-stated, coaching did yield a relatively good ROI based on the four
studies they reviewed (Table 1). Further meta-analysis studies need to be undertaken;
however, given the small number of RCT studies, this may be several years before
such an analysis can be conducted with coaching data.
As noted above the ROI varied between the estimates of clients and those of their
managers. The true effect size on ROI corrected for sampling error in the four studies
was 1.27 compared with 0.6 for the effect size in ‘Other raters’. However, a closer
examination of the data in Table 1 shows wide variation between 1.98 and 0.02 for
‘Self rated’ improvement and for ‘Other raters’ from 1.83 to 0.06. These variations
are wide and given the sample of four studies, questions need to be asked whether
definitive conclusions can be reached from the results.
We suggest that coaching’s effect may be situational, with stronger effects
demonstrated with specific individuals and within specific organisational contexts.
This would accord with Lambert and Barley’s earlier work (2002) who noted from a
Table 1. Statistics reported in the coaching studies.
Skill/performance improvement
Self-ratings effect size Others’ ratings effect size

Study (corrected for unreliability) (corrected for unreliability)
Peterson (1993) 1.98 (N 100)

Luthans and Peterson (2003) 0.02 (N 20)
Evers et al. (2006) 0.34 (N 30)
Wofred (2003) 0.46 (N 23)
Peterson (1993) 1.83 (N 100)
Luthans and Peterson (2003) 1.41 (N 100)
Smither et al. (2003) 0.06 (N 382)
Togel and Nicholson (2005) 0.65 (N 89)
See De Meuse et al. (2009).
meta-analysis of counselling that client readiness was the most significant factor
in bringing about change (accounting for 40% of the variation in outcomes). In
coaching we would suggest significant factors contributing to successful outcomes
on executive coaching interventions will be the organisational culture and the
relationship with the manager.
The future decade for coaching research

Research methodology
As we emerge from the exploration and definition phase within the research field we
are at the point where theory development and testing come to the fore. There is a
shift from case study and uncontrolled trials to designs appropriate to the type of
research questions prompted by theory generation.
By 2021 (10 years from now) we hope that researchers across the globe will have
completed 50 to a 100 large sample size studies (100 plus participants in each
intervention group), using two or more interventions, a control group and a placebo
interventions with random allocation of participants. These studies may be under-
taken at the doctoral level, allowing greater sophistication and longer time frames for
pre, post and 6 or 12 months post-intervention measures. Such studies may allow the
impact of coaching to be revealed over the course of the intervention as well as to
track its impact beyond current time frames of around one month after the coaching
to a year after the coaching has finished.
In this coming decade coaching research is likely to reach a peak of activity,
reflecting a coming together of researcher interest and new areas to explore.
As these studies are published we would hope to see by 2015 a detailed meta-
analysis of coaching as an intervention drawing on 40100 RCT peer reviewed
published studies.
Just as the case study as a methodology can only provide a limited perspective in our
exploration of coaching so RCT are not appropriate for issues requiring depth and
theory generation. As research moves forward the richness of our questions will develop
and in addressing these questions the coaching researcher will need to bring to bear the
full armoury of research paradigms, approaches and methodologies. We believe that all
research paradigms have a place within coaching and that the only criteria should be
one of research excellence the congruence of paradigm, question, approach,
methodology, instrument, analysis and conclusion. Qualitative studies using recog-
nised techniques such as IPA, Grounded Theory, Q-sort and Discourse Analysis have a
valuable role to play in helping us understanding the richness of human interactions in
coaching. We also would argue the case in favour of mixed methods studies which call
upon both traditions and through triangulation between qualitative, quantitative and
existing research literature, offering new understandings.
This inclusive stance must also extend to who contributes to the research. We
believe that both academics and practitioners have a role to play and that a divide
between the two results in lost opportunities. Where such divides have happened this
has led to a substantial reduction in research sponsorship from major stakeholders
on the grounds that research is not relevant to their practitioners and of practitioners
turning away from engagement in evidence-based practice.
Research themes
Given the review of the literature published to date and our analysis, what are the key
research themes for the coming decade? We have suggested six broad themes in the
following section, along with possible questions researchers might seek to answer.
This not a definitive list nor is it the only way to slice the future research cake. We
recognise other writers may focus on different themes and that in reality new themes
may emerge as science develops, one of these is likely to be the emergence of
neuroscience and its contribution to coaching and the wider talking professions.
The selection of coaching as an intervention

We need to have clarity concerning the distinctiveness of coaching and what

delineates it from other development or learning interventions. Specifically when is
coaching a useful contribution and when should an individual be referred for a
leadership development programme, an Action Learning Set or referred to a mentor
or to a counsellor?
Coaching cultures and organisational change?

The issue of ROI has been discussed. Reference has also been made to organisational
culture and coaching’s contribution. The complexity of the issue and the need for a
coherent organisational approach from initial design, intervention through to
outputs has been previously identified (Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006), but how can
organisations build cultures which support coaching as a management style as well as
a development intervention? What features make an organisational culture a
‘coaching culture’?
Critical features of the coaching relationship

For some, understanding whether coaching is the right organisational intervention is
not enough. We also need to better understand what aspects of coaching are the
critical features. There is good evidence that the relationship is central (De Haan,
2008a, b; Passmore, 2008). However, there is less evidence about other aspects of the
process, for instance the contribution of goal setting and particularly the impact of
goals being set by others such as the organisation in contrast with goal’s being set by
the individual client. What is the balance between challenge and support? Do both
need to be present for effect outcomes in coaching?
Client readiness for change and presenting issues

The readiness of the client for change has been identified as a major predictor of
coaching effectiveness and already research effort has been invested in assessing
readiness. This needs to continue and be extended to include factors which may
influence the ‘matching’ of client and coach, as well as preparation of the client for
coaching. The development of a short validated questionnaire would be useful.
We also need to understand the range of areas which coaching is a suitable
intervention to address. The research is beginning to identify these areas and they
include developing new behaviours (and learning), enhancing self-regard, building

hope and resilience, deepening awareness and emotional intelligence, enhancing
motivation and goal attainment. Over the coming decade we should aim to develop a
deeper understanding of these aspects, the relationship between these aspects and
whether new areas can also be impacted by coaching.
Linked to this is an aim to understand how different coaching approaches/
methodologies (e.g. behavioural, cognitive behavioural, solution focused and
psychodynamic, motivational interviewing) impact on clients and client issues. It
will be helpful to understand which methodologies are the right ones to use in
different situations. We may speculate that Cognitive behavioural coaching (Neenan,
2006; Neenan & Dryden, 2002; Palmer & Szymanska, 2007; Williams, Edgerton, &
Palmer, 2009) may be most effective for working with stress or confidence issues,
behavioural methods (Passmore, 2007b; Skiffington & Zeus, 2003) may be better
suited to enhancing goal attainment, while psychodynamic (Lee, 2009; Rotenberg,
2000) and transpersonal approaches (Rowan, 2009; Whitmore & Einzig, 2006) may
be most effective for exploring values or purpose. However, at present these are
hypotheses. We agree with Spence (2007) that research into the psychological
mechanisms underpinning successful behaviour change and goal-directed self-
regulation, such as emotional intelligence, resilience, hope, and mindfulness, is also
required and will inform such hypotheses.
We partly reject Kilburg’s (2004) assertion that the ‘dodo effect’ means all
methods are equal. We would accept this argument when looking at all methods and
all presenting problems simultaneously. However, when the data are broken down
and specific populations and presenting problems are considered individually, the
evidence from counselling suggests that differences emerge the Project MATCH
research is one example of this from Motivational Interviewing trials. This research
evidenced that MI was more effective for drug and alcohol clients than other forms
of intervention including Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (Project MATCH, 1997).
In the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has evidenced that CBT
itself is a more effective intervention for depression and mental illness than other
forms of therapy. As a result we might reframe the Dodo effect as ‘the Animal Farm
Effect’. We might expect to see similar results in coaching; all methods are equal, but
when taking account of presenting issues, some methods are more equal than others.
Future research, however, is needed to explore this question and provide evidence to
support or challenge our position.
Coach development through the coaching process

There is a wealth of interest in the validation of competency frameworks for coaching
and clearly this will have an impact on training and continuing professional
development as we have identified before. A further theme worthy of research is
the impact of coaching on the coach themselves. A number of writers (Cashman,
2009) have speculated about the impact of coaching on the coach. There is good
research in mentoring to support the view that both parties are positively influenced
by the process (Allen, Lentz, & Day, 2006; Bozionelos, 2004). Some research into this
area has started in coaching, but more needs to be encouraged to understand
whether coaching others affects the job satisfaction, promotion prospects, leadership
competences, resilience or emotional intelligence of the coach.
Coaching as a agent for social results

As we noted earlier in this paper coaching is spreading from its initial growth area of
business to new areas. The evidence suggests this spread is gaining momentum in the
UK and USA, with the aspiration of impacting on wider social issues. These diverse
areas include driver training, where coaching is being seen as a potentially useful tool
for reducing novice driver accident rates and thus road traffic deaths particularly
among the 1725 year olds, as well as improving the efficiency of driver training. It is
also spreading to education, where research work has started to show tentative
results on coaching as a tool to address under attainment in examination
performance for school leavers (Passmore & Brown, 2009). Increasingly work is
being undertaken in health (Anstiss & Passmore, in press) and this reveals that
coaching can be a positive agent for managing health conditions and supporting
wider health change. This is but to name three new areas; however, there are many
others. Research can help us push the boundaries and evaluate coaching’s success as
an intervention for learning, change and development.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have noted the seminal work of Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson
(2001), which focused attention on the lack of coaching research. Ten years of
coaching research have provided significant insights into coaching practice. Over this
period there has been a growing shift to formal qualitative methods such as IPA and
Grounded Theory and a growth in Randomised Controlled Trial studies. In the
coming decade of 20112020 we hope researcher and practitioners will further
increase the number of studies, deepen our standing of coaching as a force for good
in organisational and individual well-being, as well as in strengthening the partner-
ship between researchers and practitioners.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the workof ‘The Coaching Foundation’ and the Coaching Institute
at Mclean Medical School, Harvard University, who are actively supporting coaching research
through grants and knowledge sharing events. This paper emerged from Research events at
Harvard University in Autumn 2008 and in London Winter 2009 which the authors attended.
Notes on contributors
Dr Jonathan Passmore is a chartered psychologist and accre-
dited AC coach. He has worked for a range of consulting and
training providers including PricewaterhouseCoopers, IBM
Business Consulting, OPM and UEL. Jonathan is the author/
editor of thirteen books, including editing the AC series the
latest of which is Supervision in Coaching. He has also published
over fifty papers, the majority of these on coaching and
leadership. He current works in private practice.
Dr Annette Fillery-Travis is a senior coach educator, author and

researcher. She is a Principal Lecturer at the Institute of Work
Based Learning, Middlesex University, and leads the Doctorate
in Professional Studies programme. She has published widely on
coaching and personal development.
References
Allen, T.D., Lentz, E., & Day, R. (2006). Career success outcomes associated with mentoring
others. A comparison of mentors and nonmentors. Journal of Career Development, 32,
272285.
Anstiss, T., & Passmore, J. (in press). Health coaching. London: Karnack Books.
Bachkirova, T., & Cox, E. (2004). A bridge over troubled water: Bring together coaching and
counselling. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, 2(2), 19.
Baron, L., & Morin, L. (2009). The coach-client relationship in executive coaching: A field
study. Human Resource Development Review, 20(1), 85106.
Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executive coaching. Harvard Business Review, June,
8792.
Bigelow, B. (1938). Building an effective training program for field salesmen. Personnel, 14,
142150.
Bono, J., Purvanova, R., Towler, A., & Peterson, D.B. (2009). Survey of executive coach
practices. Personnel Psychology, 62, 361404.
Boyce, L., Jackson, J., & Neal, L.J. (2010). Building successful leadership coaching relation-
ships: Examining impact of matching criteria in a leadership coaching program. Journal of
Management Development, 29(10), 914931.
Bozionelos, N. (2004). Mentoring provided: Relation to mentor’s career success, personality
and mentoring received. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 64, 2446.
Cashman, K. (2009). Leadership from the inside out: Becoming a leader for life. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler.
Cocivera, T., & Cronshaw, S. (2004). Action Frame Theory as a practical framework for the
executive coaching process. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(4),
234245.
Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. (Eds.). (2010). The complete handbook of coaching.
London: Sage.
Dawdy, G.N. (2004). Executive coaching: A comparative design exploring the perceived
effectiveness of coaching and methods. Dissertation Abstract International Section B: The
Sciences & Engineering, 65(5-B), 2674.
Dean, M.L., & Meyer, A.A. (2002). Executive coaching: In search of a model. Journal of
Leadership Education, 1, 115.
De Haan, E. (2008a). I doubt therefore I coach-Critical moments in coaching practice.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 91105.
De Haan, E. (2008b). I struggle and emerge-Critical moments of experienced coaches.
De Meuse, K., Dai, G., & Lee, R. (2009). Does Executive Coaching Work: A Meta
analysis study. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory. practice and research, 2(2),
117134.
Diedrich, R. (1996). An iterative approach to executive coaching. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 6166.
Diedrich, R. (2004). Lessons learned in*and guidelines for*coaching executive teams.
Dingman, M.E. (2004). The effects of executive coaching on job-related attitudes (Unpublished
thesis). Regent University, VA, USA.
Ducharme, M.J. (2004). The cognitive-behavioral approach to executive coaching. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(4), 214224.
Duff, M., & Passmore, J. (2010). Coaching ethics: A decision making model. International
Coaching Psychology Review, 5(2), 140151.
Eby, L. (2011). Mentoring. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of indutrial & organizational
psychology, Vol. 2: Selecting & developing members for the organization (pp. 505526).
Washington, USA: APA.
Evers, W.J.G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2006). A quasi-experimental study on management
coaching effectiveness. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(3),
174182.
Feldman, D.C., & Lankau, M.J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future
research. Journal of Management, 31(6), 829848.
Fillery-Travis, A., & Lane, D. (2006). Does coaching work or are we asking the wrong
questions? International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 2336.
Gorby, C. (1937). Everyone gets a share of the profits. Factory Management & Maintenance,
95, 8283.
Graham, S., Wedman, J., & Garvin-Kester, B. (1993). Manager coaching skills: Development
and application. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(1), 213.
Graham, S., Wedman, J., & Garvin-Kester, B. (1994). Manager coaching skills: What makes a
good coach? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(2), 8194.
Grant, A.M. & Palmer, S. (2002). Coaching Psychology Workshop. Annual Conference of the
Counselling Psychology Division of the BPS. Torquay, UK.
Grant, A.M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M., & Parker, H. (2010). The state of play in coaching.
International Review of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 25, 125168.
Grant, A., & Stober, D. (2006). Introduction. In D. Stober & A. Grant (Eds.), Evidence based
coaching: Putting best practices to work for your clients (pp. 114). New Jersey, USA: Wiley
& Sons.
Hackman, J.G., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management
Review, 30(2), 269287.
Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L., & Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens
in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 27(3), 3953.
Hernez-Broome, G. (2004, Novemebr). Impact of coaching following a leadership development
program: Coaching is key to continued development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of
the second ICF Coaching Research Symposium, Quebec City, Quebec.
Hillman, L.W., Schwandt, D.R., & Bartz, D.E. (1990). Enhancing staff members’ performance
through feedback and coaching. Journal of Management Development, 9(3), 2027.
Holoviak, S.J. (1982). The impact of training on company productivity levels. Performance &
Instruction, 21(5), 68.
Hrop, S. (2004). Adaptive coaching: The art and practice of a client-centered approach to
performance improvement. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 826829.
Jarvis, J., Lane, D., & Fillery-Travis, A. (2006). Does coaching work? London: Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development.
Judge, W.Q., & Cowell, J. (1997). The brave new world of executive coaching. Business
Horizons, 40(4), 7177.
Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M.Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive review
of the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 53(4), 205228.
Kilburg, R.R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive
coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 134144.
Kilburg, R.R (2000). Executive coaching: Developing managerial wisdom in a world of chaos.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kilburg, R.R. (2001). Facilitating intervention adherence in executive coaching: A model and
methods. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(4), 251267.
Kilburg, R.R. (2004a). Trudging toward dodoville: Conceptual approaches and case
studies in executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(4),
203213.
Kilburg, R.R. (2004b). When shadows fall: Using Psychodynamic approaches in executive
coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(4), 246268.
Lambert, M.J., & Barley, D.E. (2002). Research summary on the therapeutic relationship
and psychotherapy outcome. In J.C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy relationships that
work: Therapist contributions and responsiveness of patients (pp. 1735). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lee, G. (2009). Psychodynamic coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.),
The complete handbook of voaching (pp. 2336). London: Sage.
Lewis, P.B. (1947). Supervisory training methods. Personnel Journal, 25, 316322.
Lowman, R. (2005). Executive coaching: The road to dodoville needs paving with more than
good assumptions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(1), 9096.
Luthans, F., & Peterson, S.J. (2003). 360-degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical
analysis suggests a winning combination. Human Resource Management, 42(3), 243256.
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team Effectiveness 19972007: A
review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3),
410476.
McKenna, D., & Davis, S. (2009). Hidden in plain sight: The active ingredients of executive
coaching. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: An Exchange of Perspectives on Science
and Practice, 2(3), 224260.
Neenan, M. (2006). Cognitive behavioural coaching. In J. Passmore (Ed.), Excellence in
coaching: The industry guide (pp. 91104). London: Kogan Page.
Neenan, M., & Dryden, W. (2002). Life coaching: A cognitive behavioural approach. Hove:
Brunner-Routledge.
Olivero, G., Bane, K., & Kopelman, R.E. (1997). Executive coaching as a transfer of training
tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public Personnel Management, 26(4),
461469.
Palmer, S., & Szymanska, K. (2007). Cognitive behavioural coaching: An integrated approach.
In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of coaching Psychology (pp. 86117).
London: Routledge.
Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A. (2007). The handbook of coaching Psychology. Hove: Routledge.
Passmore, J. (2006). Excellence in coaching: The industry guide. London: Kogan Page.
Passmore, J. (2007a). Coaching & mentoring: The role of experience and sector knowledge.
International Journal of Evidence based Coaching and Mentoring, Special Issues, 1016.
Passmore, J. (2007b). Behavioural coaching. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of
coaching Psychology (pp. 7385). London: Routledge.
Passmore, J. (2008). Workplace coaching (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
East London.
Passmore, J. (2010a). A grounded theory study of the coachee experience: The implications for
training and practice in coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review,
5(1), 4862.
Passmore, J. (2010b). 1st International Coaching Psychology Congress (15 December).
Keynote: Leadership coaching. City University, London.
Passmore, J. (2011). Supervision and continuous professional development in coaching. In
J. Passmore (Ed.), Supervision in coaching (pp. 310). London: Kogan Page.
Passmore, J., & Brown, A. (2009). Coaching non-adult students for enhanced examination
performance: A longitudinal study. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Practice
and Research, 2(1), 5464.
Passmore, J., & Gibbes, C. (2007). The state of executive coaching research: What does the
current literature tell us and what’s next for coaching research? International Coaching
Psychological Review, 2(2), 116128.
Passmore, J., & McGoldrick, S. (2009). Super-vision, extra-vision or blind faith? A grounded
theory study of the efficacy of coaching supervision. International Coaching Psychology
Review, 4(2), 143159.
Passmore, J., & Mortimer, L. (2011). The experience of using coaching as a learning technique
in learner driver development: An IPA study of adult learning. International Coaching
Psychology Review, 6(1), 3345.
Passmore, J., Palmer, S., Short, E., & White, E. (2010). The Coaching Census Building an
understanding of coaching and coaching psychology practice in the UK. Coaching
Psychology International, 3(2), 34.
Peltier, B. (2001). The Psychology of executive coaching: Theory & application. New York:
Brunner-Routledge.
Peterson, D.B. (1993). Measuring change: A psychometric approach to evaluating individual
coaching outcomes. Research paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1992). Coaching on leadership. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 13(7), 1518.
Project, MATCH. (1997). Project MATCH secondary a priori hypotheses. Addiction, 92,
16711698.
Ragins, B.R., & Kram, K.E. (Eds.) (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory,
research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reynolds, J., Caley, L., & Mason, R. (2002). How do people learn?. Research report. London:
CIPD.
Rotenberg, C. (2000). Psychodynamic psychotherapy and executive coaching Overlapping
paradigms’. Journal of American Academy of Psychoanalysis’, 28(4), 653663.
Rowan, J. (2009). Transpersonal Coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.),
The complete handbook of coaching (pp. 146157). London: Sage.
Sherin, J., & Caiger, L. (2004). Rational-emotive behavior therapy: A behavioral change model
for executive coaching? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(4),
225233.
Singh, V., & Vinnicombe, S. (2005). The female FTSE report 2005 New look women directors
add value to corporate boards. Cranfield: Cranfield University.
Skiffington, S., & Zeus, P. (2003). Behavioural coaching: How to build sustainable personal and
organisational strength. North Ryde, Australia: McGraw.
Smither, J.W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vergas, Y., & Kucine, I. (2003). Can working with an
executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field
study. Personnel Psychology, 56, 2344.
Spence, G.B. (2007). GAS powered coaching: Goal Attainment Scaling and its use in coaching
research and practice. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 155167.
Sperry, L. (2008). Executive coaching: An intervention, role function or profession? Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 3337.
Stewart, L.J., O’Riordan, S., & Palmer, S. (2008). Before we know how we’ve done, we need to
know what we’re doing: Operationalising coaching to provide a foundation for coaching
evaluation. The Coaching Psychologist, 4(3), 127133.
Thach, E.C. (2002). The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership
effectiveness. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 205214.
Thach, L., & Heinselman, T. (1999). Executive coaching defined. Training & Development,
53(3), 3439.
Tobias, L.L. (1996). Coaching executives. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 48(2), 8795.
Togel, G., & Nicholson, N. (2005). Multi-source feedback, coaching and leadership development.
Academy of Management Conference, Honolulu, USA, Best Conference Paper.
Vaartjes, V. (2005). Integrating action learning practices into executive coaching to enhance
business results. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 3(1),
117.
Wageman, R. (1997). Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams.
Organisational Dynamics, 26(1), 4961.
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices
versus hands-on coaching. Organisation Science, 12(5), 559577.
Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2003). Executive coaching: An outcome study. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 55(2), 94106.
Whitmore, J., & Einzig, H. (2006). Transpersonal coaching. In J. Passmore (Ed.), Excellence in
coaching: The industry guide (pp. 119133). London: Kogan Page.
Williams, H., Edgerton, N., & Palmer, S. (2009). Cognitive behavioural coaching. In E. Cox,
T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (pp. 3753).
London: Sage.
Wofred, T. (2003). Executive coaching project: Evaluation of findings. San Francisco, CA:
CompassPoint Non-profit Services.

Pass More 2011

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Pass More 2011

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

This article was downloaded by: [University of Memphis Libraries]

On: 04 December 2014, At: 07:55

Coaching: An International Journal of

A critical review of executive coaching

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2011.596484

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

A critical review of executive coaching research: a decade of progress and

(Received 18 January 2011; accepted 3 February 2011)

*Corresponding author. Email: jonathancpassmore@yahoo.co.uk

A closer look at many of the early studies noted by Kampa-Kokesch and

Purpose of coaching research

The nature of coaching

a collaborative and egalitarian relationship between a coach, who is not necessarily a

To the more organisational perspective offered by Kilburg:

This definition implies that coaching psychology is distinctive from coaching.

organisational practice or are specifically developed for coaching. In response to

An alternative approach to coaching psychology is to consider it as the study of

Coaching psychology is the scientific study of behaviour, cognitive and emotion

(1) Formal contracting.

Coach behaviour studies

question is what type of psychology training is critical. More clinically trained

Client behaviour studies

Initial investigations of coaching interventions began with Wasylyshyn (2003) who

Coaching impact studies: organisational

Table 1. Statistics reported in the coaching studies.

Self-ratings effect size Others’ ratings effect size

Peterson (1993) 1.98 (N 100)

The future decade for coaching research

The selection of coaching as an intervention

We need to have clarity concerning the distinctiveness of coaching and what

Coaching cultures and organisational change?

Critical features of the coaching relationship

Client readiness for change and presenting issues

include developing new behaviours (and learning), enhancing self-regard, building

Coach development through the coaching process

Coaching as a agent for social results

Dr Annette Fillery-Travis is a senior coach educator, author and

research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

También podría gustarte